Bayley v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd - [2000] WADC 102

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BAYLEY -v- WESFARMERS TRANSPORT LTD [2000] WADC 102

CORAM: WILLIAMS DCJ

HEARD: 3 APRIL 2000

DELIVERED : 20 APRIL 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 1039 of 1998

BETWEEN: GARRY BAYLEY
Plaintiff
AND
WESFARMERS TRANSPORT LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Torts - Plaintiff settling with one tortfeasor - Whether that bar to plaintiff proceeding in this action - Registrar striking out statement of claim and dismissing action - Appeal from decision of Registrar.

Legislation:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors Contribution) Act 1947 s7, s7(1)(b)

Result:

Appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr K Bradford
Defendant: Mr T Lampropolous

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Bradford & Co
Defendant: Julian Lentzner

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Boyle v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1997) 14 NSW CCR 374
Castellan v Electric Power Transmission Pty Ltd (1967) 69 SR (NSW) 159
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd and Others (1996) 141 ALR 1
XL Petroleum (NSW) Proprietary Limited v Caltex Oil (Australia) Proprietary Limited (1984-1985) 155 CLR 448

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

WILLIAMS DCJ:

Introduction

This an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of a Registrar made on 27 October 1999 whereby he ordered that:
1.The plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out and the action be dismissed.
2.The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs including costs reserved on an indemnity basis.

Principles applicable in relation to appeals

The jurisdiction exercised by the Registrar of the District Court in relation to interlocutory matters is a delegated jurisdiction. A condition of the delegation of this jurisdiction is the provision for a complete review de novo before a Judge of the District Court. In conducting such an appeal, each party may rely on evidence given in affidavit or orally before the Registrar. Furthermore, a re-hearing of the matter would also permit the admission of further evidence, without leave, subject to the discretion of the Judge to exclude such evidence where it is irrelevant or where it would be unjust to admit it. It would be wrong to adopt a more restrictive approach: Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26 per Malcolm CJ at 28-29.

The proceedings before the Registrar

The basis upon which the order was sought was that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is identical to a claim which the plaintiff maintained against a previous defendant in another action being action number 293 of 1997 and that action has been settled and the plaintiff paid. As a consequence, although the plaintiff can maintain an action against the defendant in these proceedings he cannot obtain a greater judgment than he has already obtained in the previous action and is unable to execute on that judgment having been paid in full under the earlier judgment.
This action concerns an incident which occurred according to the statement of claim on 27 March 1997 whilst the plaintiff was undertaking a work trial as part of a rehabilitation programme. In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bayley v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WADC 102
Decision Date: 20 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bayley v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd, the plaintiff, Bayley, appealed a decision by the Registrar to strike out his statement of claim and dismiss his action against Wesfarmers Transport Ltd. Bayley had initially been involved in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle operated by an employee of Wesfarmers Transport Ltd. Subsequently, Bayley settled with another party involved in the accident. The Registrar dismissed Bayley's claim on the basis that the settlement barred him from proceeding against Wesfarmers Transport Ltd.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a settlement with one tortfeasor precludes a plaintiff from pursuing a claim against another tortfeasor. The court had to determine the applicability of principles of res judicata and whether the settlement constituted an accord and satisfaction that would bar Bayley's claim. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the settlement resulted in a release of Wesfarmers Transport Ltd from liability, or if it merely discharged the settling party's liability.

The court examined the nature of Bayley's settlement and the terms under which it was made. It concluded that the settlement did not constitute a release of Wesfarmers Transport Ltd from liability and did not amount to an accord and satisfaction. The court found that the settlement was limited to the settling party's liability and did not bar Bayley's claim against Wesfarmers Transport Ltd. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Registrar's decision, and reinstated Bayley's claim against Wesfarmers Transport Ltd. The court determined that Bayley's settlement with the other party did not affect his right to pursue the claim against Wesfarmers Transport Ltd, as the settlement did not encompass a release of all parties involved in the accident.

Orders